LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 17 Jul 2014 19:04:15 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Am 17.07.2014 18:17, schrieb Robert Sanderson:

> If both URIs identify the same "thing", in this case a real world person,
> then IMO the correct predicate is owl:sameAs, and there is no need for a
> bf:Identifier.
>
> For people, where there isn't any need for interpretation, this is
> relatively easy. Either a URI identifies me, or it doesn't. For more

ISNI and ORCID are both about "persons". However ISNI has granularity
at the level of "bibliographic identity" and ORCID is more like "real
individuals". Bibliographic authority files typically lie in between,
but also extend their realm to deities, fictitius characters and so
on. Of course for 99% of the resources described this does not matter,
but for the remaining cases less apodictical statements than "owl:sameAs"
seem appropriate.


> resources that require interpretation, such as bf:Work, or Topic, the
> same-ness is much trickier to determine as the exact nature of the resource
> is difficult (I might even say impossible) to determine. Thus whether an
> ISBN identifies exactly the same "thing" as another similar identifier is
> much trickier.

ISBNs establish a relation with respect to certain aspects of the "thing"
as defined by the ISBN agency. Thus a classical MARC21 AACR2 record with
its mix of work level and manifestation level data elements and a
bf:instance graph both may legitimately carry the same ISBN as an identifier.
Whereas stating them to be owl:sameAs demands prior reinterpretation of
the MARC record in terms of FRBR.


>> Now consider
>> <http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person;
>> bf:identifier [
>> bf:schema "VIAF";
>> bf:identifierValue "195531823";
>> bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
>> ].
>>
>
> Or ... <http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> owl:sameAs <
> http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823> .

... loosing the tight association of the identifierValue "195531823"
with <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823> or "http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823"


>> However identity with the resource <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
>> is NOT built into that construction, it's rather "all resources
>> relating the same way with <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
>> are pairwise equivalent" and someone would /explicitly/ have to add
>>
>> <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823> a bf:person;
>> bf:identifier [
>> bf:schema "VIAF";
>> bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>;
>> bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/195531823>;
>> bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/LC|n89613425>;
>> ].
>>
>
> And here is demonstrated the issue with approaches like this...
>
> X a class ;
> bf:identifier Y .
> Y a bf:Identifier ;
> bf:identifierValueURI X .
>
> is unnecessary circularity. Also, having multiple bf:Identifiers, or
> multiple values on a single blank node like above introduces additional
> tiers of semantic complexity.

I consider bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/195531823>
as sort of an "opaque token" with URI (or rather IRI) semantics
when it comes to comparisons.

Of course, X is a resource and when I formulate statements with
X in subject position then these X must be the same resource.

On the other hand you'll never have tautological statements like
X bf:identifierValueURI X
and you could consider the catenation of the relations
bf:identifier o bf:identifierValueURI
as kind of split of the owl:sameAs direct relation.

So although there is one extreme case with a tautological outcome
the concept of bf:Identifier in the general case gives us the
headroom necessary to deal with any representation of identifiers.
Thus for me still no argument that bf:identifierValueURI is
definitely a bad thing to do and rather bf:identifierValueURIasString
should be the way to go.

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlPIAg8ACgkQYhMlmJ6W47MlEgP+Orz7/prFclg4R/Omx3rQEC/9
f5HKC/9bsQwzLvhBdEJgOE+Xqx0dQ46N+fpJ2jxkYKjpGHHqUOG+9c5XR9pr3Fa/
IS31Ep3f0EyYQxrxeG8ZqU3J5n05IYAs9qxpildXOozZJ13ebOp3Fd5uatGmcZS4
qn8gaWAigeQEiTQ3bes=
=D9uw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager